On Thursday, the court's six conservative justices voted to limit the country's top environmental regulator in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The justices curtailed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over emissions from coal-fired power plants, in a case brought by 19 Republican-leaning states and fossil fuel interests led by West Virginia.
The decision caps off a near decade-long legal battle that started under the Obama administration and could kneecap President Joe Biden's ambitious plans to cut domestic emissions in half by 2030. "The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia vs. EPA is another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards," President Biden said in a statement.
"While this decision risks damaging our nation's ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis."
The court ruled 6-3 that Congress had not given EPA broad powers to regulate the energy sector under the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act.
The legal fight originally stemmed from President Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP) in 2014, which attempted to use a small section of the Clean Air Act - 111(d) - to bring "generation shifting" change to the energy industry, and move from fossil fuels to renewables.
"Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible 'solution to the crisis of the day,'" wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion.
"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
The court's three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, dissented.
The decision "deprives EPA of the power needed – and the power granted – to curb the emission of greenhouse gases," wrote Justice Kagan.
She continued: "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let's say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening."
The EPA still has general authority to regulate greenhouse gases as sources of pollution as was decided by a 2007 case, Massachusetts v EPA.
And the ruling will lead to no immediate changes in federal policy.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority, which includes three appointees of former President Donald Trump, has already shifted to the right on issues, favouring less government oversight.
Last week, the conservative majority overturned the landmark case, Roe v Wade, striking down 50 years of constitutional abortion protections.
The 6-3 conservative majority also recently weakened restrictions on gun ownership. On Monday, the court's majority ruled that a high school football coach who prayed on-field after games was protected by the Constitution, which opponents claimed could lead to "much more coercive prayer" in public schools.
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.